Times are tough. You pick the time. Financial, political and moral. I believe these tough times are intrinsically tied. We have sold out the family. We have devaluated our love of family, the traditional family, and our fellow citizen family. Because we don't stick together as these families, we have lost the team spirit and the strength in numbers we use to enjoy as a benefit of any of these important family groups.
CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY
The first example is the shifting value of the traditional family and the definition of it. Let me preface this by saying that I am not homophobic, nor do I hate homosexuals. Neither do I believe that people are born that way. I believe they might be born with the propensity for this aberrant behavior, just as I believe that some people are born with the propensity for any other weaknesses of the flesh. This is spelled out clearly in the New Testament. I prefer to use New Testament examples of the Word so as not to confuse the old law of salvation by works, by which I would render ambiguous my motivation for these quotes and my feelings on the subject.
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God
gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did
change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as
they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
Romans 1:24-28, KJV
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind [homosexuals],"
1 Corinthians 6:9, KJV
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for
sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers
and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers,
for them that defile themselves with mankind, [homosexuals]
for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if
there be any other thing that is contrary to sound
1 Timothy 1:9-10, KJV
"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample
unto those that after should live ungodly;"
2 Peter 2:6, KJV
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and
going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Jude 1:7, KJV
I also believe that it is something to be looked at as a weakness by the individual and something they should attempt to avoid or preclude, not something to acquiesce to. I believe that we should love and offer to the homosexual the same love and opportunity for help we would offer a drug addict, alcoholic or person with any other form of sexual addiction/s etc.
The current push for the adoption of same sex marriage laws in many parts of the country in the name of liberty are a manifestation of the erosion of the traditional family. Only a man and woman can conceive a child, therefore I believe that only a man and woman should be parents. Any compromise of this pragmatic premise,(my late grandfather used the "it's a simple plumbing issue" analogy) is a moral compromise and a slide into immorality for not only those who would abrogate this tradition, but a handicap to the children raised by same sex unions. Children need a father. Children need a mother. I do not believe that there should be a law against co-habitation of same sex adults. I also believe that adoption of children by same sex couples should be precluded except in extreme circumstances where the child might be a genetic child of one of the partners. I know, I have just breached a controversial and volatile subject. I am willing to listen to any argument. I am rarely fixed in a position unless God has locked that position in for us clearly in the Bible, dogmatism being my pet peeve. Of course, I don't believe the government should dictate morality one way or the other.
CHANGE IN OUR CITIZEN FAMILY
Slowly we have changed our perception of the traditional family. So have we changed our perception and approach to our citizenship (our American family). We have become disengaged, apathetic, unappreciative and uninformed. We have become so very lazy and spoiled. It is exactly what the government would want. The government does not have your family's best interest in mind anymore. Let me repeat that -The government DOES NOT have your family's best interest in mind. The government is an oligarchy controlled by bankers. I worked in the banking industry for many years and have seen the slimy underbelly of this industry. They realized early on if they could get hold of the purse strings of the government they could themselves profit from the giant amount of money which could be generated by the illegal income tax. They accomplished this in several ways. First in 1913 by the creation of the Federal Reserve Act. Woodrow Wison afterward had much regret after signing this act into law and had this to say about it -
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Since then, the taxation of the public has increased at a rate commensurate with the money addicted spending of said public, and that of the politicians they choose. Tax collection and the defense of those accused of tax crimes has become a large industry. Not much has changed since Luke wrote about tax collectors and the feelings of people about them, nor has much changed about the sins of those who would so overly tax the public.
Rome's method of collecting taxes was to employ as tax collectors locals who knew who had money and where they kept it. A province was divided into tax districts. Locals would bid for the contract of collecting taxes in a district. The bid was the money they were contracted to pay the government; whatever they collected over that amount was theirs to keep. The chief tax collector (such as Zacchaeus in Luke 19:2) owned the contract for his region. Then he would employ others to collect taxes in the various villages. Tax collectors were widely regarded as thieves and robbers. Perhaps the Jews told "tax collector jokes" the same way we tell "lawyer jokes," we don't know.
 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him,  and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.
 Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them.  But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
 Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Luke 3: 12-13
 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?  And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
The spend and spend and spend mentality of entire population, politicans included are so increased as to have precipitated the creation of the two income household. This has caused further erosion of the traditional family we discussed earlier and greatly increased the amount available for the government to spend at it's discretion.
Remember,the tax on earnings of the second household member begins where the last dollar of the first earner leave off. The middle income famly is more deeply leveraged than in history and the second income is completely negated by expenses of services (e.g. eating out etc.) which would be moot with a household member at home to provide these. Child care for instance was an expense almost non-existent in the 1970's now it accounts for @ 30% of a two earner family with children. The cost of health insurance, cars, mortgages and interest on credit card debt has all at least doubled since that time. All of this money goes directly into the pockets of the bankers and financiers.
For what we spend we get less. Today for a normal non-cessarian child birth, insurance pays for 24 hours after normal delivery as compared to 5 days in '71 in some places by legislation because they were trying to push them out (pardon the pun) sooner. This practice is well known in the trade as "send em home quicker and sicker". There is also what I call faux insurance. Although you believe your family is covered. Here's a laugher, in Utah the (not sure about this guy's title, but maybe secretary of insurance?)politician in charge of the committee on insurance achieved the goal of insuring everyone, except it doesn't cover hospitalization.
Houses are no longer purchased based on the same reasons we bought them for in the 1970's People are buying schools. Let me define that statement. In side by side comparisons in Boston, in neighboroods measured for crime, sidewalks, racial composition, convenience to shopping, etc., 5 points in the difference in scores of reading for 3rd grade increased home prices by tens of thousands of dollars. Now you understand the real reason behind the school ratings system in Texas based on TAKS scores. In san diego, they did a study, parents would rather live by a toxic dump, than where they believed schools to be underperforming
The slow erosion of employer sponsored benefits has shifted the burden to the individual who when left without a safety net due to said erosion now shifts the burden to the government as the government, and the bankers would want. This facilitates the government's desire to justify the illegal income tax and create the illusion of our dependence on them.
Our entry into the workforce has also become more difficult with college degees being expected, not just desired. Twice as many people now believe that the '68 moon landing was faked, as believe you can make it in america without a college degree.
In a major shift from the early '70s, when almost no one went to pre school, now almost everyone does. What took 12 years of free education to successfully enter the workforce then now takes 18 years. The family's cost for pre-school in some places although state subsidized approaches that of state institutions for higher learning. This is incomprehensible to me.
Now with that said, there is much more to learn, much more. not all of it is neccesary or useful in todays work force, but we feel obligated, as well we should to highly educate. The additional expense incurred by your average family for this lengthier and higher education is an additional burden. Families pay for 1/3 of that privately. Many through loans, many through grants, but all from our pockets no matter the route. Once again, interest and income for banks increases and increases.